Anker Pioneers More Sustainable Bio-based USB-C Charging Cables

[TheLostSwede]

Anker, the world's #1 mobile charging brand, today announced its series of USB-C charging cables which incorporate a proprietary mixture of plant-based materials into the production process. Bearing a new "Anker Eco Product" logo, these bio-based cables are part of Anker's eco-innovation effort aimed at reducing petroleum-based plastic in product development.

It's no secret that the consumer electronics industry has a plastic problem. Every year roughly 622 million USB cables are used by people around the world. Manufacturing these cables requires around 43,000 tons of oil and roughly 9,000 tons of plastic, and these numbers only continue to increase. The outer sheath of Anker's new bio-based cables is sustainably created using 40% plant-based materials like corn and sugarcane. This innovative, new cable cuts down on petroleum-based plastic usage, like thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), without sacrificing quality, strength or durability.




"As the global leader in mobile charging, it's our responsibility to explore ways to reduce the e-waste impact our products and packaging have on the environment," said Steven Yang, CEO of Anker Innovations. "These bio-based cables are just the first step, and we're excited to drive this eco-innovation for both our company and the consumer electronics industry, overall."

Built to last
Anker's bio-based cables are just as strong as their plastic predecessors, able to withstand up to 20,000 bends. This durability keeps cables in use and out of landfills.

Design and availability
Each model is available in two sizes (3 ft/6ft) and comes in a variety of playful colors, designed to coordinate with Anker's latest lineup of charging accessories.

Anker 541 USB-C to Lightning: Fast charging with MFi chips to enable a 30 W charging speed—enough to charge an iPhone 13 up to 50% capacity in just 30 minutes. Apple certified. ($18.99-$21.99). Available today on both Amazon and Anker.com.
Anker 543 USB-C to USB-C: Fast charging with E-Marker chips to enable a 100 W charging speed—enough to charge a 16" MacBook Pro up to 38% capacity in just 30 minutes. ($16.99-19.99). Available today on both Amazon and Anker.com.
Save even more by bundling bio-Based USB-C charging cables with Anker's new Nano 3 charger (white and purple skus only, cable is 6ft C-L, $37.99. The white bundle will be on promo for $34.19 9/6-9/19). Available today on both Amazon and Anker.com.

Greener Packaging
Another area Anker is committed to improving is the actual packaging of its products. Anker's newest bio-based cable is packaged using 99% less plastic. The inner tray material has been changed from plastic to pulp. The packaging paper is FSC-certified 100% recyclable and printing is done using recyclable soy ink. Anker will look to apply these packaging standards to future products.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Valantar]

Sounds like a good initiative. The faster we can wean ourselves off of virgin petroleum-based plastics, the better. Hope they're as durable as they claim though.

 

[djisas]

Sounds like a good initiative. The faster we can wean ourselves off of virgin petroleum-based plastics, the better. Hope they're as durable as they claim though.

Just like lithium for batteries, right?
It's great but immensely polluting to produce and no one wants lithium mines near their homes...

Truth is, this plant based bio component must come from somewhere, so lest burn more of the amazon forest to make room for these cultures.
In the end Nature always looses...

 

[R-T-B]

Just like lithium for batteries, right?

No, not at all?

so lest burn more of the amazon forest to make room for these cultures.

Where on earth did you get "burn the amazon" from "40% Sugarcane and Corn based?" It wouldn't surprise me if there is a rainforest product they could even use here...

 

[Valantar]

Just like lithium for batteries, right?
It's great but immensely polluting to produce and no one wants lithium mines near their homes...

Truth is, this plant based bio component must come from somewhere, so lest burn more of the amazon forest to make room for these cultures.
In the end Nature always looses...

Yes, this is rather obvious, no? And is any of it supposed to be an argument against reducing our reliance on petroleum, the climate impact of which is worse than all of this? Yes, we need to radically change our consumption habits in any number of ways - none of it is sustainable. But in order to even come close to doing so, we also need to rid ourselves of our reliance on fundamentally non-renewable materials and energy. This is a crucial step on any path towards the world not going entirely to hell.

 

[bonehead123]

path towards the world not going entirely to hell

Unfortunately, that ship has already sailed, a VERY long, long time ago my friend

 

[Valantar]

Unfortunately, that ship has already sailed, a VERY long, long time ago my friend

Not saying you're wrong, but that's hardly an argument for not trying to improve things. At least our post-apocalyptic future might have more eco-friendly wires to scavenge from the wastes!

 

[Minus Infinity]

Any initiative like this should be applauded. No use putting our head in the sand and saying the ship has sailed. We have to keep trying and chipping away at petroleum usage and even more so stopping microplastics getting into the environment.

Small things like Australia banning single use plastics like bags, cutlery, drinking straws, cups etc is already making a difference.

 

[bonehead123]

FYI: My "ship has sailed" comment was referring to the world going to hell, not the somewhat late efforts to save the planet itself...

I've been trying for several years to do my part by recycling, using energy efficient appliances, LED lights, minimizing my travels (or at least doing several things on each trip), turning the AC up or off when not needed, keeping my vehicles tuned & maintained properly etc....

However, I do NOT believe that any of the above can or will help save society as a whole from deteriorating further than it already has, cause it will take a miracle (or 1267) to do that !

 

[The Von Matrices]

Sounds like a good initiative. The faster we can wean ourselves off of virgin petroleum-based plastics, the better. Hope they're as durable as they claim though.

Just because it's bio-based does not mean it is biodegradable. All of this marketing talks about manufacturing rather than end of life. The only mention of end of life involves recycling, which I interpret as meaning that it is equivalent to petroleum based plastic at end of life. Otherwise they would have mentioned some benefit. I suspect these cables produce just as much landfill waste and micro plastic pollution as a conventional cable.

Also, is bending really the best measure of a cable's durability? Nearly every broken USB cable that I have encountered had a broken connector and no fault with the wire itself.

 

[Valantar]

Just because it's bio-based does not mean it is biodegradable.

.... no, but did I say that? Bioplastics are still carbon neutral if burned, unlike petroleum-based plastics which always add more carbon back into circulation that hasn't been so for millions of years.

All of this marketing talks about manufacturing rather than end of life. The only mention of end of life involves recycling, which I interpret as meaning that it is equivalent to petroleum based plastic at end of life. Otherwise they would have mentioned some benefit. I suspect these cables produce just as much landfill waste and micro plastic pollution as a conventional cable.

These are separate questions, which are not mutually exclusive whatsoever. Yet you are implicitly arguing as if reducing virgin petroleoum-based plastic use is meaningless unless this also solves the plastic waste problem. This is simply not true. Both are separate, equally valid challenges that require separate solutions. Working towards fixing one is not opposed to also working towards fixing the other, but implying that improving on only one of these is meaningless as it doesn't also solve the other is ... well, pretty problematic. Doing something is better than doing nothing, and all positive steps are positive. You're implicitly arguing for not doing anything new until every problem can be solved at once, which is an incredibly counterproductive approach.

Also, is bending really the best measure of a cable's durability? Nearly every broken USB cable that I have encountered had a broken connector and no fault with the wire itself.

And why do connectors break? Oh, right: bending.

 

[The Von Matrices]

.... no, but did I say that? Bioplastics are still carbon neutral if burned, unlike petroleum-based plastics which always add more carbon back into circulation that hasn't been so for millions of years.

I'm looking at this from a perspective of landfilling. If you incinerate them like a lot of garbage is handled in the EU, then yes, bioplastics are better. If you are just landfilling them like most waste in the US, then petroleum plastic will not return the carbon to the atmosphere because it will never degrade (at least in a human timeframe).

These are separate questions, which are not mutually exclusive whatsoever. Yet you are implicitly arguing as if reducing virgin petroleoum-based plastic use is meaningless unless this also solves the plastic waste problem. This is simply not true. Both are separate, equally valid challenges that require separate solutions. Working towards fixing one is not opposed to also working towards fixing the other, but implying that improving on only one of these is meaningless as it doesn't also solve the other is ... well, pretty problematic. Doing something is better than doing nothing, and all positive steps are positive. You're implicitly arguing for not doing anything new until every problem can be solved at once, which is an incredibly counterproductive approach.

I am arguing that bioplastics that do not biodegrade are no better than petroleum plastics. The petroleum industry definitely causes environmental harm, but the commercial agricultural industry is not clean either.

And why do connectors break? Oh, right: bending.

The press release specifically mentions that the cable can withstand 20,000 bends. What connector do you know of that can withstand 20,000 bends? They're only talking about the cable.

 

[Valantar]

I'm looking at this from a perspective of landfilling. If you incinerate them like a lot of garbage is handled in the EU, then yes, bioplastics are better. If you are just landfilling them like most waste in the US, then petroleum plastic will not return the carbon to the atmosphere because it will never degrade (at least in a human timeframe).

.... and? Again: separate issues. Which do not in any way, shape or form change the indisputable fact that one form of plastic puts more carbon into circulation, while the other does not.

I am arguing that bioplastics that do not biodegrade are no better than petroleum plastics.

... and nobody has said that they do. As I said: that's another, different issue, which is not the one this initiative is trying to solve.

The petroleum industry definitely causes environmental harm, but the commercial agricultural industry is not clean either.

Even more whataboutism! Wonderful!

I mean, literally all human activity causes pollution. Where, exactly, are you going with this line of argumentation?

The press release specifically mentions that the cable can withstand 20,000 bends. What connector do you know of that can withstand 20,000 bends? They're only talking about the cable.

... which joins to the connector. Which is where it fails, as the stress of the cable bending is what causes breakage either of the cable where strain is amplified by its connection to a rigid body, or of the joints themselves. The connector can't bend (without breaking) after all, so a bend test for that is rather meaningless. I have literally never heard of a 'cable bend test' that isn't a 'cable-to-connector joint+strain relief bend test'. If you're talking just the jacketed cable itself, with no splices or connections, 20 000 bends sounds dangerously low to me.

 

[SOAREVERSOR]

Yes, this is rather obvious, no? And is any of it supposed to be an argument against reducing our reliance on petroleum, the climate impact of which is worse than all of this? Yes, we need to radically change our consumption habits in any number of ways - none of it is sustainable. But in order to even come close to doing so, we also need to rid ourselves of our reliance on fundamentally non-renewable materials and energy. This is a crucial step on any path towards the world not going entirely to hell.

We also need to address that people keep constantly buying more shit. Your carrier has plans and incentives for you to upgrade your smart phone each year. Leather is renewable but people don't go out anymore and spend a months salary on a shoe you can resole and repair and keep for life, they go buy the 50-200 buck crap on amazon and then junk it. People once owned a few pairs of clothes, now we have closets full of the stuff. Car ownership is stupid as hell as well public transit is the key.

But that's the thing the "goal" in life of that middle class life is not sustianable with the amount of people who have it. As more get out of poverty this issue will get worse. But nobody is going to take the hit and give it up for themselves so we are doomed.

 

[Valantar]

We also need to address that people keep constantly buying more shit. Your carrier has plans and incentives for you to upgrade your smart phone each year. Leather is renewable but people don't go out anymore and spend a months salary on a shoe you can resole and repair and keep for life, they go buy the 50-200 buck crap on amazon and then junk it. People once owned a few pairs of clothes, now we have closets full of the stuff. Car ownership is stupid as hell as well public transit is the key.

But that's the thing the "goal" in life of that middle class life is not sustianable with the amount of people who have it. As more get out of poverty this issue will get worse. But nobody is going to take the hit and give it up for themselves so we are doomed.

Yeah, cutting consumption is the only thing that has even the slightest chance of solving these issues, but of course people are so entrenched in the belief that consumption must always increase, and that any shrinkage is terrible that hardly anybody dares to say this out loud. Of course it doesn't help that our economic systems are rigged so that even too little growth will trigger cascading recessions, job losses, etc. Almost as if this isn't a sustainable system

(and, of course, nobody should ever mention the simple fact that lifting people out of poverty would have very low harmful effects if it was paired with redistributing the hoarded wealth of the global millionaire and billionaire classes, who represent a massive proportion of global consumption and emissions)